HARMANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for admission to diploma in Veterinary Science and Animal Technology for session 2014. He had been placed at 68 in the order of merit and his claim is based on the fact that the respondents No. 4 and 5, who are ranked above him at 25 and 33 respectively, have lost their eligibility under the following circumstances. The 1st counselling was reported to have been made on 26th August, 2014 when the 4th respondent gained his admission. The 5th respondent, who was ranked at 33, did not turn up at the 1st counseling and, therefore, lost his chance. The 4th respondent, after gaining admission, absented himself for a spell of 12 calendar days commencing on 12th August, 2014 and had been served with a notice of cancellation of his registration on 17th September,2014. It was stated in the same notice that the seat vacated by him shall be taken up for being filled up at next counselling on 29th September, 2014. The 4th respondent showed up again on the 2nd counselling and gained admission again. The 5th respondent who absented the 1st counselling had also appeared in the 2nd counselling and has claimed back his seat. The counsel for the petitioner argues that a person who was absented loses the eligibility for consideration for admission at a subsequent counselling and reads to me "an important note", which is set down in Para 8 Clause (ii) that "a candidate's absent in counselling will not be eligible for selection."

(2.) The interpretation brought by the counsel, in my view, is not correct. The important note that comes in clause (ii) comes only in the para referring to 2nd counselling and a similar disqualification is not brought in the para that refers to eligibility or the counselling in the paragraph providing for eligibility and counselling in paras 2 and 5 respectively. If there is any clause that renders a student who had absented himself from the 1st counselling to be ineligible for staking his claim at the 2nd counselling, I would accord to the petitioner's plea but the note provided under clause (ii), referred to above, appears only in the paragraph that deals with the 2nd counselling. Para 8 reads as follows:--

(3.) The petitioner's challenge to the admission granted to respondents No. 4 and 5 cannot be favourably considered and to that extent the petitioner's plea for consideration of his candidature cannot possibly be accepted when there is not shown to be any other vacancy or the admission granted to any other who is lower in the rank to the petitioner himself. The writ petition is dismissed.